Today the Labour Caucus will vote unanimously to retain David Shearer as Leader. It’s the right decision, and my expectation is he will continue to lead Labour into the 2014 election. It is too early for Robertson and Little, and a Cunliffe leadership would probably see half the shadow cabinet resign. Shearer is the only logical answer for Labour and they need to unite behind him.

Amusingly there is a thinly disguised last minute plea from Waitakere News (well known to be the Auckland Regional Chair of the Labour Party) to vote for a conviction politician (ie David Cunliffe), as the UK Labour Party has. And on The Standard they continue their amusing hobby of posting David Shearer’s regular newsletter just so they can rip it to shreds.

So does winning this confidence vote, mean Shearer is absolutely safe until after the election, when there is another scheduled vote? Not entirely.

If at anytime the majority of caucus thought it necessary to make a change, then they could push Shearer out. Shearer has no real factional support in his caucus. If at some stage Grant Robertson went to him and said “I’m sorry David, but it isn’t working” he would probably go without a fight. Robertson has significant support in the caucus, the party organisation and in the leader’s office.

But Grant is relatively young, and in no great hurry. He knows a hostile takeover would be divisive, and absolutely the sensible thing to do is support Shearer, and hopefully become Deputy Prime Minister. He is 14 years younger than Shearer.

So what could trigger a change between now and the election. Basically just two things – the polls, or very poor performance.

I think a poll driven panic forced change is unlikely. While some in Labour are smart enough to know they really need to be polling in the high 30s to have a strong Labour-Green government, many are happy with any government that has them in it – even a Labour/Green/NZ First/Mana Government. And if you look at the polls, that combination is going to stay theoretically possible for the next two years. Labour would have to drop below 28% for them to panic. Remember Labour/Greens/NZ First/Mana have 57 seats already, so  the way they see it they need just four more seats to be able to govern. So even if there is significant discontent within Labour (which is clearly the case amongst some activists), I just can’t see Labour polling badly enough to force a leadership change.

So what is the other possible catalyst? It would be if Labour is still polling okay, but Shearer has a series of terrible performances and the caucus goes into a funk at the though of how he’ll cope with the election campaign. But again I think this is relatively unlikely. While he has had some shockers, such as the stand up after sacking Cunliffe, he is generally getting better. Also performance is linked to confidence. With Cunliffe out of the way, and Labour polling okay (compared to 2011) he will gain in confidence and I expect performance.

So today’s vote isn’t the final word on his leadership. All leaders lead only with the support of their caucus, and can be removed by their caucus (except Winston). Even with Labour’s new rules, any leader who lost a caucus vote would inevitably not contest the membership ballot. However as I said my expectation is that he leads Labour into the election, and on current polls has a more than reasonable chance of becoming Prime Minister.

Of course a path to becoming Prime Minister that is dependent on what Winston may decide is a rather perilous one. The ideal for Labour is to be able to form a Government just with the Greens. But to do that they need to be polling very high 30s.

UPDATE: Stuff reports Shearer has of course been re-elected. Sounds like the vote was not unanimous, but “overwhelming”.

The Social Service Providers Association are holding a couple of seminars on the topic “Value for Money: School Breakfast Programmes and Other Early Childhood Interventions”.

The guest speaker is Eric Crampton, who I am sure will be both rigorous and interesting.The details are:

Christchurch
Monday 11th February, 1 – 3pm
St Albans Community Centre
1047 Colombo St, St Albans

Wellington
Thursday 14th February, 3 – 5pm
Mezzanine meeting room, First floor of the City Library
65 Victoria St, Wellington Central

Just a gold coin donation to attend and you can register at SSPA.

Jody O’Callaghan at SST reports:

New Zealand’s greatest footballer wants to set up one of the country’s new charter schools.

Oceania Footballer of the Century and devout, born-again Christian Wynton Rufer predicts he will be “adding a bit to the controversy” of the schools being hotly debated in the education sector.

Details of “partnership” schools will not be formalised until the Education Amendment Bill 2012 is passed, but a working group has collected expressions of interest from potential founders of the non-state schools.

Wellington-born and raised Rufer is in talks with a Christian middle school trust to create a school of “excellence”, specialising in football.

The intended location of Rufer’s school is South Auckland, but the Villa Education Trust – which designed Auckland’s Mt Hobson Middle School and Upper Valley Middle School – also intends to open charter schools in West Auckland and Whanganui.

The trust is open to ideas for what the other two schools could specialise in.

Rufer said he had been looking for ways of extending the opportunities offered at his WYNRS football academy in Auckland, to more children than the present 3000.

He jumped at the chance to combine talents with Mt Hobson Middle School and Villa Education Trust founder Alwyn Poole, and his wife, Karen.

They ran an “outstanding” school already, which gave his own youngest son an education that no state school could offer, he said.

“And from my side of it with sport and football, we’re the leading football academy in New Zealand. …

Poole said he wanted to work with Rufer to offer “the opportunity for some superb sports provisions” and good academic support to those struggling in the present system.

“Something else to give these kids something to live for. I think the football would be an interesting start.” After working in classes of no more than 15, pupils in year 7 and 8 could spend a couple of hours three afternoons a week in football training, increasing in frequency for those showing potential by year 9 and 10, he said.

The restriction on charging fees would open the roll to children from lower socio-economic families, where there was a potential to find some real football stars, he said.

While there was a “lot of nonsense” being spoken about charter schools, schools such as that of tennis pro Andre Agassi, in America, had proved successful, Rufer said.

Sounds like a very good plan.

Chloe Johnson at HoS reports:

Super mum Melanie Jackson has been pregnant 16 times – and she can’t wait to do it again.

During the past 16 years she has been through eight hospital births, two home births – including a water birth – and six miscarriages.

Ouch, that’s a lot of pregnancies by age 36, and a sad number of miscarriages.

But Melanie, 36, and Craig, 41, have not finished making their family yet.

“We don’t feel in our hearts we have finished,” Melanie said.

Six weeks ago she gave birth to their 10th child, Truleigh, who joined five brothers and four sisters aged between 16 and 2.

The Jacksons live in a six-bedroom home in Hamilton and go through 25 loaves of bread, a tray of eggs and about 30 toilet rolls each week.

Their grocery bill is around $500 a week and they receive no financial assistance from the Government, Melanie said.

I think having lots of children is a great thing if the parents are good parents who can afford to look after them – as is the case here.

Matthew Hooton writes in NBR:

The bigger the lie, the more likely it will be believed.

Today’s left wails that the global financial crisis has undermined the case for so-called neoliberal economics: free and open economies, price stability as the primary goal of monetary policy, freely traded currencies, prudent fiscal policy and private ownership of productive assets.

David Shearer says “the hands-off, leave-it-to-the-market approach has failed all over the world.” Labour/Green will be “hands on.”

Matthew provides a table to compare how well hands-off and hands-on countries are doing:

Hooton notes:

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, the world’s six freest economies are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Canada (see table).

These six have avoided anything like the deep and prolonged recessions of more interventionist countries.

The IMF continues to forecast higher growth for the six than for countries further down the freedom list.

Even more important, both unemployment and youth unemployment are lower in the more free-market economies.

While I don’t think the labels hands-on and hands-off are particularly meaningful, I absolutely agree with Matthew that the freer the economy the more it tends to grow, and the more jobs are created.

NBR reported:

Auckland District Law Society will not be publishing its weekly Law News magazine this week after the double-whammy resignation of its editor and main writer.

Colin Taylor resigned as Law News editor on Monday after 16 years in the job.

So why did he quit? Well he is not shy in saying so.

A letter from Mr Taylor, informing his colleagues of his resignation, cites a “sea change” in relation to editorial production of Law News early last year after Ms Keppel’s appointment.

“It was characteristically tainted by almost weekly altercations with this new chief executive due to her instructing the cutting, censoring or changing of editorial content based purely on her personal,  petulant, schoolgirl-styled grudges and fits of pique directed against both authors and subjects of editorial items [including serving council members]; and also reflecting her breathtaking ignorance of editorial, news media and publishing processes and the laws relating to defamation and libel,” he wrote.

“I also received management directives for the inclusion within Law News of editorial’ material that comprised an unjustifiable propensity of rather sickening ‘social’ content that was clearly intended to ingratiate the chief executive with high-profile’ figures in the profession and judiciary; and which blatantly exhibited a sycophantic desire to ‘suck up to’ the profession’s luminaries.”

Hmmmn, I don’t think he liked her.

A fun video which stars Melanie Lynskey, Valerie Adams, Dai Henwood, Steve Wrigley, Colin Meads, Denise L’Estrange-Corbet, Beauden Barrett and Kane Barrett.

John Stringer at CoNZervative blogs:

In a report on the Select Committee hearing the Redefinition of Marriage Bill -that the media continue to misrepresent as the “Marriage Equality Bill” (a partisan epithet – latest distortion The Press, p. 2 Jan 31)- we are expected to believe that teenage gay people are committing suicide because they cannot marry each other.  That really stretches credulity.  Even a lawyer maintains this, citing a study.

“The denial of equal rights lies in the background here, as parents are encouraged to see non-heterosexual as properly excluded from the normal institutions of society.”  What utter manipulative rubbish.  

This tired old untruth is trotted out all the time, as a justification for giving gay people everything they want, hero parades, special support groups. Basically it says, “if we don’t get what we want, we’ll kill ourselves,”  or “gays are so persecuted, they are considering suicide.”  That is disingenuous, distortionary and demeaning to the gay community.

The only thing disingenuous and distortionary is John’s blog post. It’s appalling. Absolutely no one has has said gays will go out and kill themselves if they don’t get gay marriage passed.

What people have said is that gay teenagers have a high suicide and attempted suicide rate, and any move which makes them not feel that they are “wrong” could help reduce that rate.

If people are so insecure about being different, or about their sexuality, to the point of ending their lives, they have a mental health issue, and need support and care, not “marriage” being redefined.  If the claim were true, then bisexuals and people in multiple partner relationships would also be dropping like flies.  New Zealanders also have a high suicide rate; should we all get Australian citizenship?

The lack of empathy in this paragraph is truly appalling, and worse from someone I normally have a lot of time and respect for.

To just state that it is just a mental health issue, if you are a suicidal gay youth suggests no idea at all of what it must be like to be young and gay. Most of us can only imagine what it is like, but only a small amount of empathy is needed to understand how agonising it must be to be say 15 or 16 and realising you are different from your mates. You like guys instead of girls. How do you tell your parents? How do you tell your mates? Should you tell them? Will they dump you as a mate because they’ll think you fancy them? Will you get called a faggot? Will you be beaten up? Will you have a happy life? Will you ever have kids? Will your parents disown you? Of course you’re going to be fucking insecure if you are a gay youth.

I recall from when I was at school, the terrible teasing effeminate kids got about possibly being gay. Rumours (almost certainly untrue) that x and y had been caught doing something weant around the school. They were called names. They were asked outright if they liked cock. I think back and wonder how fortunate it was there were not some suicides. Now thankfully many kids today are more enlightened (mainly due to legal and societal changes of the last 20 years) and are more accepting. But hell, anyone who thinks because you are insecure over being a gay teenager you are suffering from a mental health issue – well words fail me.

And yes I for one absolutely think that a law which allow gay couples to marry, will have a beneficial effect on young gays. It is a powerful sign of acceptance, and of saying that even though you are different, you may be able to one day also marry the person you fall in love with.

Of course no one commits suicide solely because they can  not marry. But no one has suggested that. All the suicide experts know that suicide decisions have many factors. But acceptance is a factor.

Treat us, the public, with respect and don’t insult our intelligence with representations like this. What utter nonsense.  Young Christians are hassled, mocked, derided and picked on constantly in schools, the media, on TV, for their faith.  Only this week Green MP Keith Hague said teenage Christian Grace Carroll was “outrageous” and “offensive” because she mentioned “virtue.”  Black really has become White.  Christian teenagers don’t commit suicide.  They soldier bravely on, shouldering the mockery and having the courage of their convictions, often to death in overseas countries. I’m sure many teenage gay people do too.

First of all people choose to follow a faith. Does John think, as Colin Craig does, that people choose to be gay? And is he really saying that is it harder being a teenage Christian than a teenage gay?

And finally John not content with saying that any insecure depressed gay youth just has mental health issues, also claims:

There’s no doubt that many gay teens are harassed and bullied (a study published in the January 2010 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health suggested gay and lesbian teens get bullied two to three times more than their heterosexual peers), and some of them may take their lives because of it. But there’s little evidence that gay teens have a dramatically higher rate of suicide than heterosexual teens.

Really? There is no definitive prevalence rate for gays and lesbians so no definitive suicide rate, but over a hundred studies have found higher rates of suicide attempts. Look at this or this or this list of 100 or so studies.

Simon Collins reports at NZ Herald:

Philanthropist Sir Owen Glenn has been forced to freeze grants to projects aimed at ending family violence, apparently because of a dispute in his own family trust over how his fortune should be spent.

Sir Owen vowed last July to give one-tenth of his $800 million fortune to fighting child abuse here.

But the Weekend Herald has learned the money has not arrived. It is understood that the foundation has been told the overseas-based trustees believed it was no longer appropriate to distribute philanthropy in NZ.

Sir Owen, who built up his fortune in a global logistics firm, flew suddenly this week to the United States, where his sons live.

Former Auckland University Business School dean Dr Barry Spicer has resigned as chief executive of the Auckland-based Glenn Family Foundation, and one of its two other staff also left suddenly this week.

In a brief statement, Sir Owen said he had taken over as the foundation’s chief executive and was “in discussions with the trustees” of his family trust, which is separate from the foundation, about the “timing” of the release of funds to the foundation.

This is somewhat intriguing. Normally a family trust squabble would be of no public concern, but in this instance it has impacted some publicly committed projects so naturally has hit the media.

What is intriguing is that the trustees seem to be disagreeing with the person who I assume funded the trust and presumably appoints them. Of course it all depends on how the trust deed is worded.

Regardless a shame that the dispute has disrupted the laudable intentions of Sir Owen.

Stuff reports:

Novopay provider Talent2 were unwilling to staff a call centre for stricken teachers in the week before Christmas, documents show.

Then-Associate Education Minister Craig Foss had to call chief executive John Rawlinson to intervene.

Education Ministry acting chief executive Rowena Phair wrote to Talent 2 board chair Andrew Banks last month to say she was “appalled” and it was “unacceptable.”

“The impact of this decision would have been that a large number [of] schools’ staff would not receive their holiday pay prior to Christmas.”

It is obvious there were great tensions between the Ministry and Novopay for a considerable period of time. The client and the supplier were blaming each other. The ministerial inquiry announced by Joyce will no doubt shed some light on blame – once the current situation is resolved.

Finance Minister Bill English, Education Minister Hekia Parata and Associate Education Minister Craig Foss signed off the project in June last year despite advice there were 147 “software defects”.

The number of defects is not actually significant, especially in a $100m contract. What is more important is the nature of those defects.

In June last year, a report to English, Parata and Foss, outlined 147 bugs in the system. There were no problems at the most serious level, but 10 at the next level and 105 at “level 3”.

So no show-stoppers had been identified?

So why did the Government proceed?

Four independent advisers – from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the Social Development Ministry, the Primary Industries Ministry and the New Zealand Transport Agency – gave the system the green light.

“Talent2 now has a proven way of rectifying defects and releasing the fixes,” the Education Ministry report said.

The ministers allowed the project to go ahead in August.

I’ll be very interested to see the PWC advice especially. There could be some culpability around that advice, if it was flawed.

With the benefit of hindsight, a regional pilot should have been insisted upon before rolling out nationwide. The inquiry will have to look into that also of course.

And one question for those with memories. Who was the ministerial advisor of the Education Minister who developed the original contract, and what role does he have today?

Pat Pilcher writes at NZ Herald:

Every once and a while a law is passed that really gives you pause for thought. One such example is an inexplicable piece of legislation about to come into force in the US that will see smartphone users unlocking their phones with the permission of their mobile service provider running afoul of the law.

This bizarre situation came about because the US government applied the same sort of loopy wisdom that you’d associate with walkshorts, cardigans and the public sector.

In a nutshell they worked out that smartphones could contravene the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Bizarrely this then resulted in laws being drafted so that while it is legal to jailbreak smartphones, it will become illegal to jailbreak tablets and even more annoyingly, illegal to unlock phones without permission from the telco you bought your phone from.

How ridiculous.

Whilst most telcos would argue that there is a solid commercial reason for this legislation, in that they’re wanting to ensure that the cost of a subsidised and heavily discounted handset is recovered from the duration of the customers mobile contract and don’t want the customer exiting their plan prematurely.

If they do, then you may have breach of contract. That is what they do in NZ – you have to pay more to change providers early on if you got a discounted handset. There is absolutely no need to have this as criminal law.

This is almost an abuse of law making powers. It will I am sure be widely ignored.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

David Do, who is New Zealand-born and of Chinese-Vietnamese descent, told a parliamentary select committee it was widely – and falsely – assumed that European New Zealanders supported gay marriage while Asian and Pacific communities opposed it.

He said there were many people within immigrant families who wanted to support gay marriage but could not speak out.

“My perspective here is as a young, gay, Asian man,” he told the committee.

“I still cannot be fully honest with who I am with my family. I still have not told my Dad, who I love very much, that I am gay. I do not want to break his heart.”

Unless his Dad doesn’t read the Herald and has no friends who read the Herald, then I suspect that problem may now have been solved!

John Armstrong writes:

So exits Lockwood Smith as Parliament’s Speaker. And to genuine and sustained applause from MPs from all parties.

Except Winston whose speech yesterday was churlish. Winston goes from having the Speaker being the guy who beat him for a safe seat nomination in 1984, to the guy whom he unsuccessfully tried to sue for defamation. He holds a grudge.

Once the House was under way, there could often be too much referee’s whistle rather than him allowing the two main parties to engage in no-holds-barred debate. He was noticeably reluctant to grant applications for snap debates – one of the few means available to Opposition parties to hold Governments to account. He was subject to potential no confidence motions from Opposition parties.

Yet no other Speaker has done more to help the Opposition and uphold Parliament’s role of ensuring Cabinet ministers are accountable for what happens in their portfolios. His insistence that a minister address the actual question being posed by an Opposition MP rescued Parliament from fast-approaching irrelevance.

He has indeed, and the precedents he has established will carry on beyond him.

Carter is an avuncular figure who enjoys respect around Parliament for the quiet, modest and unfussy way he has gone about doing a good job in his ministerial portfolios. He will do a good job as Speaker even though he might not have wanted the job. But Smith will be a hard act to follow.

Indeed.

The Herald editorial is rather bizarre. The headline is:

Work in jail scheme will do more harm than good

Now that is a very definitive statement. It is not saying there are complications, or it *may* do more harm than good. It is a definitive statement that it will definitely do more harm than good.

Yet I read the entire editorial, and they don’t actually produce anything to back up the assertion. They talk about the complications and the extra costs that may be incurred, but that is again vastly different from stating outright that having additional working prisons will do more harm than good.

Now let us look at what the Herald says is so awful:

Ms Tolley has conceded the plan will require “significant infrastructure upgrades”.

Presumably she is referring to the workplace equipment that will need to be installed in prisons. The costs do not, however, end there. There is the expense involved in work training and tuition for the inmates.

Oh my God. We will spend money on training and tuition for prisoners. How awful.

I’m skeptical of many types of government spending.  There’s a lot of programmes I would personally cut, to allow a reduction in taxes. But you know I don’t have a huge problem with training and tuition for prisoners.

Already, however, the British Prison Officers Association has complained that this is exploitative of prisoners and risks damaging the wider economy. “We have concerns about simply using prisoners as cheap labour for companies to cut their costs,” it has said. That cutting means, inevitably, that in some cases prisoners are taking the jobs of people in the community.

That is a potential concern, but we already have some work being done. The challenge is making sure the work done has minimal impact on other jobs. But again the editorial provides no substance to back up their assertion the expansion of work in prisons will “do more harm than good”.

Additionally, there is the risk that an increasing emphasis on getting inmates into work will lessen that on education, employment training and drug and alcohol addiction treatment programmes. This rehabilitation work was, commendably, at the forefront of Government policy announced last year.

Quite the contrary. The plan is part of that programme, as in fact the editorial them acknowledges:

A key part of this programme is providing greater support for prisoners to find jobs when they are released. Theoretically, that process should be aided by the Government’s work initiative.

So again we have an entire editorial that is at odds with the assertion in its title. It is bizarre.

They say:

Admirable idea falls down on numerous practicalities.

Yet they have not documented these. All they have done is say hey it may cost some money (no shit Sherlock), and you need to be careful of the impact on the labour market.

I never thought we’d see a newspaper argue against money being spent on giving prisoners training and tuition so they are more likely to gain employment when released.

My thoughts go out to the family and friends of Sir Paul Holmes. John Key has said:

“Paul Holmes was a gentleman broadcaster. He conducted his interviews with intelligence and insightfulness, and while he never suffered fools, his interviews were never without kindness and empathy,” says Mr Key.

“He was a trailblazer in New Zealand journalism with a style that was all his own.

“I also counted him as a friend and I want to personally acknowledge the pain Deborah, Lady Holmes, Millie and Reuben are now feeling and offer my heartfelt condolences,” says Mr Key.

“Paul has been part of New Zealanders’ lives since the 1970s. For more than a decade he was compulsive viewing at 7pm and, up until very recently, he was still on Q&A and his radio show. It is hard to imagine a broadcasting spectrum without him.

I did a weekly politics chat with Sir Paul on his Saturday morning ZB show for the last few years. It was a delight to do, as he was always very knowledgeable on the issues of the week – but equally I enjoyed his tendency to wonder off politics sometimes and end up discussing anything from the beauty of Vienna to good coffee. It was his ability to effortlessly hold a conversation that made him such a great broadcaster.

I was never a huge fan of the TV show that made him a household name, partly because it was somewhere between current affairs and entertainment. Where I thought he was almost a genius was on his daily morning ZB show. His ability to talk and entertain for three hours a day was almost without parallel, and I was a regular listener. Have hardly tuned in since he left it. He also brought real experience and insights to Q+A which was a must watch for me.

Of course he was not without his flaws and weaknesses, as none of us are. This however is not the time for reflecting on those. It is a time to think of the many New Zealanders who did know him well and the loss they are experiencing with his passing. I know a number of people who were very close friends of Sir Paul and they often spoke of his enormous generosity of spirit, and many small kindnesses on a personal level.

It is sad to have someone who worked so hard all his life, die so relatively young, unable to experience a long and peaceful retirement which would have been well-deserved. May he rest in peace now.

Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:

Porirua City Council is pushing to be one of the first councils in the country to offer internet voting at this year’s election.

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett addressed the Justice and Electoral select committee, which was hearing submissions on proposed changes to the local electoral act, this morning.

There, he called on the committee to look at including provisions in the amendment bill, allowing internet voting at local body elections.

E-voting would offer a better way for young people to get involved, he said.

The postal voting system was irrelevant to many young voters – most of whom paid little or no attention to local politics, he said.

”It’s fairly safe to say that most people these days have a greater relationship with the internet … than they do with their post box.

”Younger voters were always the hardest to convince to vote, so making it as easy as possible was an important part of the process.

”We can’t afford to disenfranchise more than one generation of people.

”While young people would still need to be convinced to take an interest, it would remove at least one barrier, he said.

I agree that postal voting is dying as an electoral method. For local government elections we need to at least trial an e-voting option.

As I understand it the current law is flexible enough to allow some local authorities to offer e-voting later this year. All that is needed is for Cabinet to pass some regulations to govern how it is done. This should be done in the first quarter of this year. It is ridiculousness that 16 years after the Internet became widely available in NZ, we are still dragging our heels on this issue.

I’m surprised Labour put Trevor Mallard up as their nominee for Speaker. While of course National would always have made sure the numbers were there for David Carter, a different choice could have put pressure on the Maori Party and United Future and ACT to vote for Labour’s nominee.

But the moment they nominated Trevor, everyone thought it was a piss take. In fact they literally laughed in the House when he was nominated. Trevor being nominated for Speaker is a bit like Brendan Horan being made Racing Minister. The mere fact you want the job, isn’t enough of a qualification to get the job. In fact I declared on Facebook and Twitter that if the new qualification for top parliamentary jobs is that you really would like it – well then I declare my candidacy for Minister of Finance!

Labour could have either nominated a Labour MP who would be seen as a serious contender, or with a bit of mischief nominated a different National MP (who would have declined but the point may have been made). No one would have laughed at the nomination of Ross Robertson or Annette King.

In fact I understand Annette’s latest thinking is that she won’t stand for Mayor of Wellington, as that would allow Little into Rongotai. Hence so long as Labour looks competitive in 2014, she plans to stand again and will be Labour’s nominee for Speaker after the election. If that is the plan, would have made sense to put her up now.

So why did Labour put Trevor up? The only reason I can think of is it was the only way they could try and get him out of caucus and ensure he has nothing to do with their next election campaign!

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the latest Roy Morgan poll. National and Labour are unchanged (14.5% gap) but what has moved significantly is the country direction which has increased from a net +20% to a net +26.5%.

One of the best places to take photos of Siberian tigers (lao hu) is still…Siberia.

“On ice” (no, I can’t explain it)

Click for larger, higher res image

“Old Tiger”

Click for larger, higher res image

And there’s nothing quite like being out in -25 C temperatures to create a strong yearning to be back in NZ 🙂

The Economist reports:

THE incumbent is the leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), rules in coalition with the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), and is more popular than opposition challengers from the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens. The only worry is the fate of the FDP. Polls say it may get less than 5% of the votes, the threshold to enter parliament. If the CDU loses its coalition partner, the SPD and Greens combined could be stronger. The CDU’s supporters understand this dilemma and tactically “lend” their votes to the FDP to keep it in parliament. So the FDP surges at the last minute—but entirely at the expense of the CDU. By the narrowest of margins, the centre-left parties then win, and form the new government.

This describes the situation in Lower Saxony, a state in northern Germany that held an election on January 20th. A well-liked CDU premier, David McAllister, and his FDP partners lost power to Stephan Weil, the SPD’s candidate, and his Green allies. The margin decided just before midnight, in what a moist-eyed Mr McAllister called a “heart-stopping finale”, was a single seat (69-68). “We are all very sad,” said Angela Merkel, the chancellor and CDU national leader, who campaigned hard for Mr McAllister (they are pictured above).

Sounds like NZ somewhat!

But it is Mrs Merkel who must make the subtlest recalculations. So far, she has governed and campaigned with a style that German boffins call “asymmetric demobilisation,” meaning that she has tactically stolen issues from the centre-left opposition by enacting them pre-emptively or signalling that she might. The latest example is a minimum wage, which the left demands and to which she (but not the FDP) seems open. This may make supporters of the SPD and Greens stay at home on polling day, she believes.

The risk is that CDU voters stay at home as well. But she may be showing ideological flexibility for another reason. As the FDP becomes a wild card, and the coalition arithmetic of an SPD-Green majority is so uncertain, the odds rise of an alliance between the CDU and either the Greens or the SPD. She knows it can be done, having spent her first term in a “grand coalition” with the SPD (and Mr Steinbrück as finance minister). “One thing is for sure,” says Uwe Alschner of Poliethics.com, a strategy consultancy. “Germany’s political system will shift left.”

I think a CDU/Green Government in Germany could well occur.